Comments on: A history of the Iraq war, told entirely in lies

A history of the Iraq war, told entirely in lies

skallas — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 15:05:33 -0800

A history of the Iraq war, told entirely in lies. All text is verbatim from senior Bush Administration officials and advisers. In places, tenses have been changed for clarity. Originally from Harper's Magazine, September, 2003. By Sam Smith.

By: crazy finger

crazy finger — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 15:09:17 -0800

I don't feel like checking right now, but I think this has been on Mefi before- or at least I read it before and I probably got the link from Mefi.

By: crazy finger

crazy finger — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 15:12:01 -0800

(I still like it though, and I'm glad to be reminded of it). Funny how much stuff has slipped off the radar screen.

By: kgasmart

kgasmart — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 15:14:14 -0800

Why does Harper's hate America so much?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 15:22:02 -0800

you're welcome : >

By: matteo

matteo — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 15:39:26 -0800

"President told - you are a liar and a criminal"

By: Blue Stone

Blue Stone — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 15:41:52 -0800

It's a good idea, but I can't help thinking it could have been done so much better. There were (and still are) so many lies being bandied about by Bush/Bliar, that this effort seems a little anemic.

By: Keyser Soze

Keyser Soze — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 15:44:38 -0800

If anyone criticizes what our president says, the terrorists have already won.

By: kaibutsu

kaibutsu — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 15:48:47 -0800

i'm hoping the fallout from the Plame thing takes at least a few members of the administration down...

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 15:53:18 -0800

Holy shit. Seven comments and no one's posted a quote from Clinton six years ago or something about how Saddam is bad as if that, you know, changes everything. People must still be groggy from New Year's. Obviously agenda-based, but delivered in an artsy way that doesn't involve dirty hippies and "Free Mumia" puppets. Good find, skallas. I wish I hated America as much as you did, it leads to cool stuff like this. ;)

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:13:51 -0800

By: Busithoth

Busithoth — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:17:16 -0800

It's a good idea, but I can't help thinking it could have been done so much better. There were (and still are) so many lies being bandied about by Bush/Bliar, that this effort seems a little anemic. Actually, I think the anemia lies within the blood of those unwilling to fight. The whole impeachment 'scandal' was weak, weak, weak. Yet that didn't stop Republicans from pursuing it. And, if anything, it proved that you don't need to wait for the 'doozy' lie. Any will do. There's dozens to choose from with W and Co., but it would take a modicum of effort to pursue it...

By: DragonBoy

DragonBoy — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:01:34 -0800

I don't understand these "Hate America" comments, as if skallas's post has anything to do with he USA, as a country. It's about the leaders of our country who are doing the lying. There is in my mind, a big difference. These liars in the White House are not representative of America. They are symptomatic of a lazy and uninformed voting public though. So, by criticising Bush and his regime a poster hates America? No, by posting this thread skallas hopes to inform people that they need to pick a more honest President this November to represent the America they love. George W. lied about the cherry tree.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:15:24 -0800

I don't understand these "Hate America" comments It's a reference to this comic (note the cameo by a suspected terrorist.)

By: kablam

kablam — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:18:57 -0800

"I suppose it depends on what your definition of freedom is." "I did not have war with that country." Name that tune.

By: eddydamascene

eddydamascene — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:19:06 -0800

I ? America.

By: Stauf

Stauf — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:22:18 -0800

Why do you question America so much?

By: eddydamascene

eddydamascene — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:23:47 -0800

Because I ♥ it.

By: ahimsakid

ahimsakid — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:24:17 -0800

Thanks Amberglow! Things do go down the memory hole too quickly!

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:55:09 -0800

Don't get too concerned about "Hate America" comments, DragonBoy. It's most often used in sarcasm these days, but if someone seems serious when they say it, try to remember that they're quite aware that you don't really hate America - they're just trying to stifle debate.

By: Steve_at_Linnwood

Steve_at_Linnwood — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 19:19:10 -0800

As I said before when the item was previously posted on Metafilter: With out citation, this is 100% worthless. Especially when you consider how loose the media in general is with the term "senior [Insert President Here] Administration official" Not only is truthfulness in question, but more importantly: CONTEXT Since Sam Smith took the time to compile the quotes (since they are authentic, right?), one wonders why he would not take the extra 30 seconds to attribute each quote. Surly, that would make the document much more powerful. It leaves anyone who is even slightly skeptical wondering what Mr. Smith has to hide. But I guess this must be the norm, since skallas failed attribute this post amberglow.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 19:24:00 -0800

Magazines don't usually use footnotes steve--Harper's is a well-researched, factual magazine with an excellent reputation. As I said in the other thread: it's all been sourced before--Harper's doesn't make stuff up--check all the public statements of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell...those are the officials quoted. AND: We know the context: public statements in speeches to the american people, the un, and on tv, selling the war to us, and explaining the messed-up situation there post-invasion.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 19:32:07 -0800

also, ahimsakid's links in the other thread sourced almost all of them.

By: Steve_at_Linnwood

Steve_at_Linnwood — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 19:37:04 -0800

Magazines don't usually use footnotes You are correct, but I never said 'footnotes'. I said 'attribute', as in "said Mr. X in his X speech" and so on. My point still stands. It may be entertaining for some, but that is all it is, entertainment.

By: skallas

skallas — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 19:40:50 -0800

S@L:but that is all it is, entertainment. Head. In. The. Sand. Keep up the GOP talking points though, it gets boring without some opposition.

By: kgasmart

kgasmart — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 19:41:21 -0800

My point still stands. It may be entertaining for some, but that is all it is, entertainment. Disagree. Are you contending that because of a lack of attribution, the quotes are made up? I'm sure Mr. Smith could source them for you if you e-mailed him. That's the straw man, though: We can argue over whether he should or shouldn't have sourced them in the piece. All the better, so we don't have to talk about the content of the quotes themselves.

By: skallas

skallas — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 19:56:58 -0800

And of course, lies have consequences:

"Howard Dean is right," declared the silver-haired Hollings, launching into a spirited defense of Dean's assertion that Americans are no safer now that Saddam Hussein has been captured. "Saddam wasn't causing anybody any problem. You have some little smart-aleck announcer on television asking, 'Do you think we're better off with Saddam gone?' What else is gone? We have 456 dead; 11,000 maimed for life, and I don't think it was worth it. I had intended to vote against that resolution [giving Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq], but Rummy and Condi Rice and Cheney said you can't wait until the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud. I thought they had some intelligence, that they knew something."

Emphasis mine.

By: Steve_at_Linnwood

Steve_at_Linnwood — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 20:17:54 -0800

it gets boring without some opposition. Funny, that is what the Republicans in Congress have been saying... All the better, so we don't have to talk about the content of the quotes themselves. As I said, the context of the quotes is important. As an example, I link to just such a case where a reporter took a quote out of context to make it appear that it was something it was not. As Matt pointed out, the full quote was nothing like what was implied. (Maureen Dowd is infamous for this). So again, with out attribution he have no idea Who said What, and the Context it was said in. I would think all of those things matter to people who claim to be so interested in the truth.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 20:32:09 -0800

em>I did not have war with that country. How many American combat deaths were there in the NATO intervention in Kososvo again, kablam? Although we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction there, we did stop a brutal dictator from committing further acts of genocide. Oh, yeah--0. Guerrilla Attacks Kill Three U.S. Soldiers in Iraq

By: paleocon

paleocon — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 22:19:00 -0800

Everything appears to be correct in the text of the article, except the title. The title was the only thing that the author wrote, and it was a lie. Irony.

By: bshort

bshort — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 22:40:36 -0800

Paleocon - isn't there some bridge you should be hiding under?

By: wobh

wobh — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 22:56:39 -0800

"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity."

By: Satapher

Satapher — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 03:15:15 -0800

who loves fallacious arguments?!?!?!?!

By: swerdloff

swerdloff — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 05:39:02 -0800

Amberglow - Magazines don't usually use footnotes steve--Harper's is a well-researched, factual magazine with an excellent reputation. The same was said about the New York Times before Jayson Blair and friends. I haven't looked at the article, don't know about it's veracity or not. Just saying - even the well respected papers/magazines are known to screw things up these days.

By: matteo

matteo — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 07:02:17 -0800

My point still stands. It may be entertaining for some, but that is all it is, entertainment. no, the fact that the Bush White House started a war using lame, debunked and made-up evidence is not entertaining at all. too many Iraqis, Americans, British, Italians, Spaniards, Japanese, etc lost their lives unnecessarily. NOT funny at all, sadly. I suppose you're a big fan of cops, right? well, good cops know that solid evidence does not need any help. but there wasn't good evidence against Saddam so you guys went ahead anyway, using alumin tubes and Ahmed Chalabi's bullshitter defectors testimony as a battering ram for your beloved "regime change", and idea that started much before 9-11 happened. and the recent Orange Alert demonstrates how much safer America is now, I guess on the other hand, what is entertaining is the amount of denial found nowadays in the Right -- even Charles Krauthammer (and you can't get much more right wing than him without joining a militia) acknowledged that ("... come back to me in five months. If we haven't found any, we will have a credibility problem.") you have no credibility, Steve, because your President doesn't have any after Iraq. but of course all you care about is winning elections (after three consecutive Presidential defeats, that's understandable), so, go ahead. Bush will probably get reelected, that's the only thing that matters. it's also interesting how using American (and foreign) GI's as pawns and as cannon fodder does not matter anymore. do you want to see good attribution to quotes, links, etc that show how many lies your buddies told to drag the world into Iraq Attaq? Check out, say, y2karl's many posts and comments about that topic. you'll find plenty. but sticking the head in the sand is, well, probably the last refuge of the shameless not to mention is so funny how the Right Wing's threshold for what constitutes good reporting shifted considerably since the not so distant Clinton-killed-Vince-Foster and Clinton-raped-Juanita-Broddick times ah, the sight of the Gingrich boys waving Vince Foster's briefcase on C-SPAN, looking for "the truth"... that, indeed, is still a source of bitter amusement for people who are less shameless than you are

By: sycophant

sycophant — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 07:06:37 -0800

Because I have a little free time - citations I have found. Not all of them, because I don't have that much time. "Once again, we were defending both ourselves and the safety and survival of civilization itself." Dick Cheney - 30 Jan 2003 [Whitehouse Transcript] "September 11 signaled the arrival of an entirely different era." Dick Cheney - 23 Jul 2003 [Whitehouse Transcript] "We faced perils we had never thought about, perils we had never seen before." George W. Bush - 20 Nov 2002 [Whitehouse Transcript"] "For decades, terrorists had waged war against this country. Now, under the leadership of President Bush, America would wage war against them." Dick Cheney - 24 Jul 2003 [Whitehouse Transcript] "It was a struggle between good and it was a struggle between evil." George W. Bush - 08 Feb 2002 [Whitehouse Transcript"] "It was absolutely clear that the number-one threat facing America was from Saddam Hussein." Ken Adelman (Pentagon advisor) - 17 Jun 2002 [CNN Crossfire Transcript] "We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda had high-level contacts that went back a decade. We learned that Iraq had trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and deadly gases." George W. Bush - 07 Oct 2002 [Whitehouse Transcript] "The regime had long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations." George W. Bush - 28 Sep 2002 [Whitehouse Transcript] and George W. Bush - 26 Sep 2002 [Whitehouse Transcript] "Iraq and Al Qaeda had discussed safe-haven opportunities in Iraq." Donald Rumsfeld - 26 September 2002 [State Dept. Transcript] "Iraqi officials denied accusations of ties with Al Qaeda. These denials simply were not credible." Colin Powell - 6 Feb 2003 [CNN Transcript] "You couldn't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talked about the war on terror." George W. Bush - 25 Sep 2002 [Whitehouse Transcript] That's the first two paragraphs, and about as much context as you could ask for. But that's all the time I have for now. It's fairly easy, a quick google search for a part of the quote trying to avoid refence to tense. Then for Bush and Cheney quotes, do the search again with 'site:whitehouse.gov' for quick access to the transcript. Anyone else want to carry on the search?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 07:24:55 -0800

Steve should finish the search, since he's the one (or one of the ones) questioning the veracity--most of us remember hearing those statements on tv and reading them in the paper.

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 08:07:38 -0800

there's no way these can be lies. bush is a christian and lying is a sin.

By: poopy

poopy — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 08:28:47 -0800

the bush admin told lies? thanks mefi for educating the ignorant masses. it's comforting to know that if one of the uneducated misses this post, there's sure to be another one within a day or two.

By: JollyWanker

JollyWanker — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 09:07:09 -0800

For those interested in attribution of the quotes, Molly Ivins did something similar last September, attributions included...

By: ed

ed — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:40:33 -0800

Hey, folks, let's make this like SETI@home. One paragraph at a time. I'll take the third paragraph. "The fundamental question was, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer [is] was absolutely." (CNN -- July 14, 2003, Bush to reporters) "His regime had large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons--including VX, sarin, cyclosarin, and mustard gas, anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox." (Donald Rumsfeld, January 20, 2003) "Our conservative estimate was that Iraq then had a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical-weapons agent. That was enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." (Colin Powell to UN, February 5, 2003) "We had sources that told us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons." (same Powell speech later) The unfragmented version echoed a few days later in Bush's February 8, 2003 radio address: "And we have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." "And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as forty-five minutes after the orders were given." (Bush to reporters, September 26, 2002 "There could be no doubt that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." -- Again, from Powell speech Anyone want to tackle the next paragraph?

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 11:42:08 -0800

Even though I rejoice at the thought that Saddam's out of business, Bush & Co. have built up a tremdous amount of bad karma making it happen, and I don't feel any safer from terrorists for it.

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 11:42:52 -0800

er, that was tremendous. One beer too many during the NFL playoffs.

By: sycophant

sycophant — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 11:50:14 -0800

Hell, I had so much fun with the first three, why don't I shoot for the fifth too. "Saddam Hussein was determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb." (Colin Powell to UN, February 5, 2003) "We knew he'd been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believed he had, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." (Cheney on Meet The Press, March 16, 2003) "The British government learned that Saddam Hussein had recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (Bush in State of The Union, January 28, 2003) This is still presented as current fact here. "Our intelligence sources told us that he had attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear-weapons production." (as above) "When the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied-finally denied access, a report came out of the [International Atomic Energy Agency] that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I didn't know what more evidence we needed." (Bush with Tony Blair, September 7, 2002) And that is paragraph 5.

By: jpoulos

jpoulos — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 12:08:26 -0800

Hey! Where'd S@L go?????!!!!!

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 12:08:51 -0800

I'm saying this in all seriousness: Steve@Linwood, why do you hate America so much? Those who love America are willing to be critical of its leadership. They expect -- and demand -- accountability from their leaders. You don't seem to expect this. Indeed, you appear to want to be lied to. It's time to grow some balls and become a patriotic American, Steve. Demand an end to the lies

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 12:15:28 -0800

didn't steve say at one point that if we hadn't found any WMD within 6 months after the war that he would become the administration's most vocal critic?

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 12:18:46 -0800

WMD have been found! But not in Iraq.

By: swerdloff

swerdloff — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 12:23:54 -0800

Wow. I'm convinced. Put that Saddam fellow back in power, we never should have messed with him in the first place. Down with Bush! Long Live Dean! Politicians have lied to us! I'm shocked, shocked I say.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 12:29:47 -0800

swerdloff, when people die, and are still being killed every day because of politicians' lies, it's more than just a joke--it's criminal.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 12:55:08 -0800

Americans 'conned' into backing war, ex-general asserts

By: y2karl

y2karl — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 12:59:18 -0800

Down with Bush, Long Live Dean! I'm sure your buddies here would disagree.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:38:38 -0800

Only a simpleton or a fool would mistake people's outrage at the Administration's lies and stupidity as a desire to see Saddam returned to power.

By: Busithoth

Busithoth — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 14:01:24 -0800

...simpleton or a fool... would you believe both? warmongering equals patriotism to some people. Those same people are gonna get popped in the face by yours truly if one of my friends gets killed over there while they crack jokes about how it's no big deal.

By: iffley

iffley — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 14:04:44 -0800

This covers similar ground, but with Flash and sound - a better persuader than the Harpers article. Maybe we can have just one Iraqfilter thread a week, where we can purge ourselves of all the war crap that's been building up since the last thread? Sort of like regular colonic irrigation.

By: Vidiot

Vidiot — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 14:23:43 -0800

Especially when you consider how loose the media in general is with the term "senior [Insert President Here] Administration official" Um, that's because in almost every single case, the "official" has made that a condition of the interview. News organizations source their quotes if they possibly can -- it makes the story stronger. It's not like the AP decides to use an anonymous quote when the source is speaking to them on the record. Often, reporters and their sources go back and forth in negotiations over precisely how their quote is attributed when they are speaking "not for attribution." (not to be confused with "off the record", "on background", "on deep background", etc. But, these distinctions are fluid anyway -- smart sources know to get the terms mutually agreed-on BEFORE spilling the beans.)

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 15:22:32 -0800

Anyone want to take odds that now that there are attributions, Steve@ doesn't return to this thread? Seems like a too-common problem these days - 'You can't prove it, poopyheads!' Oh-oh, they proved it...I'm outta here! Well done, MeFi detectives.

By: eddydamascene

eddydamascene — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:06:11 -0800

Nice work, sycophant and ed. Anyone want to take odds that now that there are attributions, Steve@ doesn't return to this thread? Perhaps he would, if you'd cut out the frickn snoopy dance.

By: john

john — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:41:52 -0800

But in Steve's case, to borrow from Sam, "Why Bother?" He linked to that previous thread and we see that the point is that his viewpoint is winning and that in his reality NOW is devoid of journalism. If journalism veers at all from the purely objective does it become something else? Isn't that an unrealistic demand? Is it that his point is just to stab with a dagger of doubt? He then watches the struggle and hopes someone falls or else flees. I see little interest in truth or an effort in proof and an inverse degree of demand of it in others.

By: poopy

poopy — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:15:19 -0800

Well done, MeFi detectives. THE TRUE PATRIOT SUPERHEROES. or something.

By: eddydamascene

eddydamascene — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 18:26:41 -0800

Is it that his point is just to stab with a dagger of doubt? If it is, let him stab. The authenticity of the quotes is easily verified, as others have shown. Defending the context in which they are used takes a little more effort, and Steve@ was justified in raising that issue. No member of the administration would deliver that speech in its entirety (although Powell came close), because so much of it is patently absurd or now disproved; the argument that the terrorism of Al Qaeda and the actions of the government of Iraq are indistinguishable is made more strongly here than the administration has ever dared to do in a single afternoon. Yet, this is precisely the narrative that has been established over time. Smith has arguably created something new, but what he created is an accurate account of what we heard. This was the case for the war on Iraq, in all its dodgy splendor. Metafilter: THE TRUE PATRIOT SUPERHEROES.

By: sycophant

sycophant — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:18:29 -0800

The point, I think, is that sentance by sentance, those are all soundbites we've heard before. They were quoted in every newspaper and on TV over and over again. They made the case for war. When it turned out that they were exaggerated, or out and out lies, that was not reported nearly as wide. Partly this is the media's fault, but I think overall they were toeing the party line, as it were. So what, the editors think, even if that little bit were wrong, they have so much more evidence that it doesn't matter - but gradually more and more of the evidence turns out to be wrong, and it simply doesn't get reported. It's no freak occurance that so many American's thought, and probably still think, that Saddam and Osama were linked, the administration said so. The same goes for the belief that weapons were found. And so much more. Regardless of what the context of the original speeches may have been, they were presented to the public, much as they are in this article, as simple grabs - still without the context.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:49:55 -0800

Ed, Sycophant - great work. This is some type of karmic retribution to Steve_at_Linnwood, who said, on the "Is media reform a pipe dream" post, after Amberglow had posted the link to the Harper's piece, "Sorry, but that is not very applicable at all. With out citation, that is 100% worthless..... Especially when you consider how loose the media in general is with the term "senior [Insert President Here] Administration official".... Quotes with out sources are worthless... Period.....Not only is truthfulness in question, but more importantly: CONTEXT posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:06 PM PST on January 3 " Just goes to show, be careful what you ask for.......

By: ed

ed — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 23:29:04 -0800

Well, hell, alcohol does wonders. Here's paragraph 4: "Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States." -- Bush, October 7, 2002, remarks by the President on Iraq -- Cincinatti Museum Center. Paragraph 6: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." -- Bush, USA Today, October 21, 2002. "We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons." -- Cincinatti speech "Inspections will not work." -- Colin Powell, Jan. 24, 2003, Washington Post (source: Independent interview, cannot find). "And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." (Bush, July 14, 2003 at photo op with Kofi Annan. "The burden is on the critics to explain where the weapons of mass destruction are." -- Ari Fleischer, White House Daily Briefing, July 9, 2003. But since the above quote isn't exact, this Salon article quotes Ari that way. The quote as specifically recorded is, unfortunately, under cover of the New York Times in this article (which you have to pay for). Needless to say, the Daily Briefing quote is close enough. And that would seem to be the only major bone of contention that Steve@ or similar temperaments could proffer. But then a quick trip to the library could sort this out.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Mon, 05 Jan 2004 02:55:50 -0800

cut out the frickn snoopy dance. Not hardly, nah. Doo-doo-doo, doo-doo-doo, doooo doooo dah dah-dah†! *dances* †Peanuts music.

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Mon, 05 Jan 2004 07:23:33 -0800

How can I take your sourcing seriously, ed, if you can't even spell Cincinnati? Admit it, you made all of that up.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Mon, 05 Jan 2004 07:56:16 -0800

Yeah....and what's with Stavros' "snoopy music"? - that's not snoopy music, it's the music of Vince Garaldi ! Does anyone have any more nits I can pick off their scalps? Nits are quite tasty, and nutritious too. Plus - they're free.

By: ed

ed — Mon, 05 Jan 2004 12:58:35 -0800

trout: You misspelled "Guraldi." I'll see you in hell, partner. Clearly we are the vanquished.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 05 Jan 2004 14:49:01 -0800

A very helpful and resourceful lurker has linked the entire piece back to its sources : >

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Mon, 05 Jan 2004 15:35:56 -0800

Ah, I didn't realize Matt was a lurker - I thought he was going to self-link here. Well done, again. This man should get a MeFi login, stat!

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 05 Jan 2004 15:59:24 -0800

He really should -- hey Matt! let Matt in!

By: y2karl

y2karl — Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:27:18 -0800

With out citation, this is 100% worthless. Especially when you consider how loose the media in general is with the term "senior [Insert President Here] Administration official" Not only is truthfulness in question, but more importantly: CONTEXT Magazines don't usually use footnotes You are correct, but I never said 'footnotes'. I said 'attribute', as in "said Mr. X in his X speech" and so on. My point still stands. I don't believe citation is as synonymous with the verb attribute as it is with the noun footnote in the common understanding. Say, aren't you the You're Changing the Subject! Kid?

By: fold_and_mutilate

fold_and_mutilate — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 21:35:24 -0800

Sam Smith, as usual, has an accurate handle on things. I would think all of those things matter to people who claim to be so interested in the truth. posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:17 PM PST on January 3 Oh...the truth. Kinda looks like you got a dose of it above...and...well, as pointed out by numerous people above and confirmed by my own personal experience, confrontation with the truth seems to have a very peculiar personal effect on some people, including gale-force knee-level wind and the infamous cut-and-run, right Steve@Linnwood?

By: y2karl

y2karl — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:15:54 -0800

Sam Smith, as usual, has an accurate handle on things. I would think all of those things matter to people who claim to be so interested in the truth.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:17 PM PST on January 3 Oh...the truth. Kinda looks like you got a dose of it above...and...well, as pointed out by numerous people above and confirmed by my own personal experience, confrontation with the truth seems to have a very peculiar personal effect on some people, including gale-force knee-level wind and the infamous cut-and-run, right Steve@Linnwood? posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:35 PM PST on January 7

somebody missed his quotation marks